Who needs a yellow star when you’ve got the New York Times?

Phyllis Chesler latches onto something icky even by the New York Times’ increasingly sinking standards:  its obsession with Bernard Madoff’s Jewishness:

For days now,  I have been following the media coverage of the Madoff scandal. I could not help but note that the New York Times kept emphasizing that he is Jewish and moved in monied, Jewish circles; not once, but time and again, in the same article, and in article after article. ‘Tis true,  alas, ’tis true, the rogue is a Jew: But how exactly is Madoff’s religion more relevant than Rod Blagojevich’s religion?  The Times has not described Blagojevich  (or Kenneth Lay of Enron) as “Christians,” nor do they describe the Arab or south Asian Muslim terrorists as “Muslims.”

As I’ve  previously noted, the Times goes out of its way to describe terrorists who are ethnic Arab Muslims and south Asian Muslims as “gunmen,” “attackers,” “fighters,” (never as terrorists), and they rarely use the word “Arab” or “Muslim”  to characterize the perpetrators of a deadly rogue action.  However, the paper of record will use the word “Muslim”  to describe an aggrieved victim who has alleged “Islamophobia” or “racism.”

Read the rest here, in which Chesler develops on the paper’s bizarre obsession, one mirrored only by its equally bizarre obsession to hide from the public the religious affiliation of any Muslim actor caught doing bad things.

Be Sociable, Share!

    Despicable..is the word that comes to mind.

    Angry..is the word that I feel.

    NOT FIT TO WRAP FISH IN..should be the paper’s banner.

  • suek

    Maybe a form of denial of their own Jewishness??

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    I don’t see anything “bizarre” in anti-semites writing in an anti-semitic style…..

    OK, before someone points it out, the Arabs in Gaza and elsewhere are also semitic. So, I’ll rephrase….

    I don’t see anything “bizarre” when Jew-haters use a Jew-hating style in their writing.

    And for anyone who wants to take issue with my observation of Jew-hating, here’s my challenge. Using Occam’s Razor, what better explains BOTH the harping on Madoff’s Jewishness AND the consistent hiding of the fact (via regular and consistent failure to mention) that the murderous bombers, rocketeers, and various other terrorists are MUSLIM?

    Go for it.

  • Mike Devx


    Thank you! And no, I won’t even attempt to take issue with your observation!

    When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… it’s a duck! Why would anyone look at that juxtaposition of behavior towards Jews and Muslims, and not see Jew-hating as the primary motivation?

    One can only hope that it’s a case of ideological blinders firmly in place… and not deliberate evil.

  • Charles Martel


    Your comment got to me thinking about what motivates a newspaper in a town that has 2 million Jews to be so consistently anti-Semitic.

    One thing that occurs to me is that perhaps the Times is bowing in the direction of its stylistic superiors, the British, and trying to imitate the BBC’s notorious Jew hatred.

    It wouldn’t be the first time that “sophisticated, cosmopolitan” New Yorkers have fallen all over their yokel selves trying to impress their betters.

  • Ymarsakar

    Soros is Jewish also, and he is just as corrupt, if not more so.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    Sadly, Jews are such overachievers that, even when it comes to self-loathing, they tend to outdo others.

  • Tiresias

    It could just be sheer racism on the part of that famous family of Irishmen who own the paper, the Sulzbergers.



    I thought so as well until…….they went from Arthur Ochs Sulzberger to AOS, Jr. only to be topped by AOS III.

    Bookworm is quite correct in her observations, to which we can add ‘deniers’ of the faith as well.

  • Ymarsakar

    Usually by now, what the “family owns” is less than 51% of the total controlling stocks.

    After a few generations, the descendants tend to “sell off” their shares in favor of things like yachts and cruises.



    It certainly appears that they sold more than their shares…they sold their souls.

  • Tiresias

    Wrong-o, in this case. There are often two kinds of stock in corporations: voting and non-voting. At the Times: there’s voting and peasant, and the twain do not meet. The tier that has the say and does the voting is 100% controlled by family and intimates; the rest of the world gets to buy – should anyone be dim enough to wish to do so – stock that goes along for the ride and has absolutely nothing to say about anything: no opinions on how it’s run, what’s in it, what new building it moves to, whether or not that building will be mortgaged, what acquisitions will be made or shed, whether the heat or air conditioning will be turned up – nothing.

    The family is 100% in contol – though they may well, by this time, be considering lynching young Pinch, who is evidently a monumental idiot, along with being an ideologue.

  • Ymarsakar

    The tier that has the say and does the voting is 100% controlled by family and intimates

    The time any extended family of rich peeps agrees on anything not related to the preservation of their lives and power, is the time humanity will end war.

    The efficacy of single man executive decision making over “committees” have been proven, Tiresias. No amount of saying it is wrong, will disprove it.

  • Ymarsakar


    I don’t dispute your dual stock argument, Tiresias. I do dispute whether a committee can be said to “control” anything.


    What they look like they are doing is protecting their dual stock system and the New York Times. Whether they can exercise enough real control over the Times to make them do one thing over another, however, is one I don’t accept.

  • Ymarsakar

    It certainly appears that they sold more than their shares…they sold their souls.

    Sulzberger, I heard, was also a reporter for another newspaper or so. Runs in the blood, you may say.

  • Charles Martel

    The writing seems to be on the wall for the NY Times: November’s ad revenues were down 20 percent from 2007 and there’s a $400 million credit payment due in a few months. Add to that the paper’s junk bond status and there’s trouble a-brewin’.

    So, when that pathetic Jew-hating rag begins its terminal tailspin, I’m hoping that Pinch and his fellow sophisticates go running to the government for a bailout. I’d love to see what the Roberts Court will do when it makes mincemeat of the pro-bailout arguments it is bound to hear:

    — A national treasure

    — An independent source of truth (Walter Duranty, Jason Blair)

    — A reliable chronicler of events (Tawana Brawley, the John Kerry campaign; the John Edwards campaigns; the Barack Obama campaign; the war in Iraq; Sarah Palin; women’s golf)

    — A font of intellectual rigor (featuring such memorable heavy thinkers as Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Paul Krugman)

    — A publication with broad appeal (especially among affluent whites in non-wealth-producing fields, such as “education,” “journalism,” “community organizing,” the social sciences, government, non-profitdom and mainstream Protestantism.)

    — A multiculturalist, inclusive organ with national reach (Jews, however, need not apply. Nor blacks who are “race traitors”).

  • Mike Devx

    Fantastic and spot-on Truth!

    If the NYT would offer a special subscription price for “non-reading usage”, I would definitely apply. My new doghouse is almost ready, and I can’t find straw for warm bedding. A few shredded NYT papers to cover the floor would serve very well, and I promise: I won’t read a word.

    $1.02 per month as a special rate would be mighty attractive for this purpose.

  • Pingback: Random Jottings()